Le Saturday 25 October 2008 18:36:33 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
> Romain Beauxis <toots@rastageeks.org> writes:
> > Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
> > understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
> > distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations
> > for such a decision.
>
> Let me quote the GR text:
>
> "In practice, then, documentation simply isn't different enough to
> warrant different standards: we still wish to provide source code in
> the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify
> and reuse documentation in other documentation and programs as
> conveniently as possible, and we wish to be able to provide our users
> with exactly the documentation they want, without extraneous
> materials. "
>
> As we don't accept program object code without source, we are not
> accepting document binaries without source, either. For the motivation
> behind the GR, read the various lists for that time, this was
> discussed extensively back then.
Do you claim a PDF file is a binary file, or a program object ? Even if PDF
was a programming language, as proposed in another anwser, it would fall into
the script category, where the executed object is also the source.
Furthermore, requirement to provide source code is a consequence of the
requirement to be able to modify the program. Again, if I provide a manual
for blind people consisting in a wav (or a ogg/vorbis) file, what kind of
source would you ask for then ?
Romain